OPM Medical Retirement: Word Additions

When viewing a landscape, does the utterance of words add anything to the beauty or desolation?  When rage wells up within a tormented soul, do words which convey a rational thought process ameliorate the temperament in any way?  Whether, in the evolutionary progression of one’s biological apparatus, the appearance of language beyond fundamental communication (e.g., for advanced warning of dangers, conveying of location, and similarly basic devices of informational immediacy) enhances the meaningfulness of the thing itself, is a question beyond mere pedantic interest.

Does a person add anything to the beauty of a red dawn, by describing it with words and conceptual constructs?  Or, better yet, do we glean any greater understanding by descriptive means, or does it merely camouflage the exquisiteness of the thing itself?  There are exceptions.

Medical conditions, and the need to understand their origin, impact, treatment modalities and prognosis allow for individuals to makes decisions based upon information gathered.  The pain itself, or the destructive and progressively debilitating nature of a medical condition, may not require descriptive devices of deciphering linguistic dalliances; but for the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who must map out one’s future course of actions, the words which one chooses to employ can make all the difference in the conceptual world we live in.

Federal Disability Retirement is a benefit available to all Federal and Postal employees who find themselves with a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

For Federal and Postal employees under FERS (which most Federal and Postal employees are under, inasmuch as CSRS and CSRS Offset employees are becoming rarer by the year), a minimum of 18 months of Federal Service must be accumulated; but once that threshold is met, it is the evidentiary sufficiency based upon the legal criteria as mandated by statute, the courts, and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, which must be complied with through the use of words.

In viewing beauty, words rarely add; in experiencing feelings, language often merely complicates; but in engaging a complex bureaucratic process, words and conceptual constructs add to the future viability of one’s capacity to meet the complex challenges of an ever-changing world.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Context, Content and Vacuums in Federal Employee Disability Retirement Applications

Vacuums constitute space devoid of matter.  In the practical world, the mechanical tool used for removal of unwanted substances merely moves matter from one location to another; in theoretical physics, one encounters complex conceptual discussions which will often involve comparative analysis of partial vacuums in relation to pure vacuums.  Discussions involving vacuums, where a proper context is important in understanding the relational significance of subjects focused upon, and the incomprehensible vacuity of meaningless occurs when conceptual connections are lost because context and substance lose their connective importance.

In the context of filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS or CSRS, too much focus and attention upon peripheral matters, outside of the context of medical conditions in their relationship to positional duties and essential elements of one’s Federal job, will often create a vacuum of significance.

Context is always important; but the extent of detail required, and necessity of issues to be discussed, and the quantitative value of documentation and evidence submitted, may well prove to attain an opposite effect from the one intended. Unintended consequences resulting from intended actions are to be expected in daily life; but where one has decided to pursue an administrative and bureaucratic process where submission of the evidence can be thoughtfully controlled, it is always important to coordinate the relationships between context, content and vacuums.  The descriptive context of an OPM Disability Retirement application; the substantive content of the evidence to be submitted; and the vacuum created by placing evidence in one part of the Federal Disability Retirement application but leaving it omitted from another, results in the intended whole of an effective Federal Disability Retirement packet.

All Federal Disability Retirement applications are filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether one is under FERS or CSRS, and because the agency which reviews, approves or denies a Federal Disability Retirement claim is different from the one which originates with the source (with the exception of the injured Federal Employee who actually works with OPM, which can of course happen and has happened), it is important to consider the connective relationship between context, content and vacuums created, both in practical life, in theoretical physics, as well as in the preparation, formulation and filing of a FERS Disability Retirement application.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill
OPM Disability Attorney

 

Medical Retirement for Federal Workers: The Difficulty of Coordination

From the time one is born, coordination becomes a matter of survival: from maneuvering in the awkward ambulatory manner of humans on two legs as opposed to four; to trying to excel in sports and other competitive endeavors where there are always others who have greater physical abilities; to a world which demands multitasking and where singularity of performance is considered inadequate.

Then, when a medical condition suddenly hits, the learning curve of the individual takes on a magnified and crippling proportionality.  Suddenly, it is not a matter of attempting to coordinate two or more efforts; it is effort enough to accomplish a single task.

Further, for the Federal or Postal employee who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits, whether under FERS or CSRS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is the additional task — beyond the physical coordination of work and worry — to coordinate the multiple elements in compiling a Federal Disability Retirement application.

Thus, from acquiring sufficient medical evidence and documentation, to completing the proper forms in order to meet the minimum eligibility criteria, to meeting deadlines and all the while, for many, continuing to work in order to survive.

Coordination is an ability which must be continually learned. On top of it all, for an effective submission of a Federal Disability Retirement application, reference to the prevailing laws governing Federal Disability Retirement issues should be made.

In the end, while the ambulatory beginnings of a toddler may have been the easiest to overcome, it turns out that it is merely the foundation for all future courses of challenges and obstacles to face.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Coordinating the Elements of Success

Coordination is something taken for granted; it is only when there is a visible lack of coordination that one comes to appreciate that which has been taken for granted.  Thus, when a disjointed presentation is viewed; a play or a movie without a coherent theme; an unskilled person attempting a skill-based sport; a person trying to “wing it” when such an endeavor cannot be accomplished without prior practice and perseverance:  it is the bad play which brings to the fore the importance of coordination.

Thus, for the Federal and Postal Worker who is contemplating filing for OPM Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, it is the disjointed application, the one without a coherent structure or lacking of the necessary connections between the primary three (3) elements:  the law, the personal narrative, and the medical foundation; that is when a Federal Disability Retirement application is in trouble at the outset.

Coordinating the necessary elements will greatly enhance the chances of a successful Federal Disability Retirement application.  It is when there is a lack of such coordination that the inherent inconsistencies and lack of evidentiary substantiveness will become apparent; sort of like the minor leaguer who tries to reenact the play of a major league type, only to find that it isn’t quite the same.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement: The Problem of Coordination

The world of language is a peculiar universe of artifice; while comparisons to other primates may provide indicators for the origin and foundational beginnings for the evolution of language in order to better understand where we came from and how we came to be where we presently are — it is the complexity of the present which confounds and amazes.

The conceptual constructs of language lends itself to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misuse; as precision is no longer a standard of usage, so malleability of language now lends itself to clever tricks in order to avoid commitments, breach contracts, and take advantage of unsophisticated opponents.  Thus, the classic statement:  “It all depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.

In a Federal Disability Retirement application before the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the compilation and coalescence of differing language games (to borrow a Wittgensteinian phrase) must be presented:  Language of the lay person (the Federal or Postal worker who is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits); language of the medical profession (doctors’ reports, technical diagnostic test results, office notes, etc. must be submitted); and legal jargon (legal citations and arguments should also be garnered for support).

Once gathered, the various components of the tripartite language games must somehow be made to complement each other.  This is indeed a difficult task, as each language game constitutes a self-contained artifice of complex meanings.  But coordination of the three spheres of linguistic artifice is key to a successful outcome.  To do this, one must take on the role of being a technician, a conjurer, and a pseudo-artist all at once — in other words, to juggle the three balls such that one may understand that what “is” is indeed that which is and is not.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire